« April 2009 |
| June 2009 »
May 27, 2009
IPL 2009: an analytical overview
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in
One may love or hate IPL but certainly cannot ignore it. I might complain and crib about many IPL-related things, but the players, their commitment, performances and their give-all attitude makes you forget the shortcomings and watch the same. It is also an analyst's dream. There is a lot of data waiting to be mined.
Cricinfo provides a comprehensive statistical section on IPL. In addition Rajesh has come out with an excellent statistical overview of IPL2. I have tried to make sure that I do not overlap any of the tables available in these two segments. What is given below is also a look into the future of T20 analysis. This has to be different to traditional Test/ODI analyses.
1. IPL2: Analysis of each over - Runs and wickets
Over Num Runs Avge SD Sd/M Max Min Wkts Avge SD SD/M
# Overs Runs Ratio Wkts Ratio
1 114.0 633 5.55 3.89 0.70 22 0 38 0.33 0.59 1.76
2 114.0 767 6.73 4.65 0.69 20 0 33 0.29 0.49 1.70
3 114.0 821 7.20 4.32 0.60 21 0 26 0.23 0.46 2.01
4 114.0 881 7.73 4.16 0.54 22 0 26 0.23 0.46 2.01
5 113.5 922 8.10 5.08 0.63 22 0 31 0.27 0.50 1.84
6 113.0 902 7.98 4.85 0.61 25 0 33 0.29 0.47 1.62
7 113.0 640 5.66 3.71 0.65 24 1 30 0.27 0.46 1.74
8 113.0 752 6.65 3.16 0.47 17 1 17 0.15 0.40 2.69
9 113.0 778 6.88 3.63 0.53 20 2 27 0.24 0.50 2.10
10 112.2 685 6.10 3.28 0.54 17 1 33 0.29 0.51 1.74
11 112.0 729 6.51 3.43 0.53 18 1 30 0.27 0.53 1.99
12 112.0 819 7.31 3.82 0.52 18 0 26 0.23 0.48 2.07
13 111.0 802 7.23 3.96 0.55 20 1 27 0.24 0.47 1.93
14 110.1 822 7.46 4.07 0.54 19 0 30 0.27 0.52 1.91
15 109.4 871 7.94 4.14 0.52 24 1 36 0.33 0.52 1.60
16 105.5 865 8.17 4.59 0.56 22 0 45 0.43 0.63 1.47
17 104.2 955 9.15 4.39 0.48 22 0 43 0.41 0.61 1.49
18 102.2 982 9.60 4.73 0.49 24 1 47 0.46 0.62 1.35
19 96.2 865 8.98 5.26 0.59 28 0 44 0.46 0.61 1.33
20 82.5 829 10.01 5.19 0.52 26 1 77 0.93 0.89 0.96
16320 699
This is possibly the most significant of all analysis I have done for the shortest format. The spark came from a suggestion made by Nicholas who suggested that I look at each over in isolation and analyse bowler performances. I have worked on that concept and looked at each over from 1 to 20. For each of these overs I have determined the total runs conceded (all including extras), average runs conceded, standard deviation and maximum and minimum runs conceded. I have also looked at the total wickets captured (all including Run outs since we are not doing a Bowler analysis), average wickets and standard deviation. The results are fascinating.
- The drop in number of overs for the 5th over is caused by the D/L finish in 4.5 overs by Delhi. Similarly early finishes cause drops in later overs, after 9.
- The first over has been the most economical of all. This is understandable since the batsmen are yet to find their feet.
- Not surprisingly the seventh over is also as economical as the first. Immediately after the fielding restrictions are removed there is a lull in the scoring rate.
- Note also the sharp drop in scoring rate in the 10th over possibly indicating that the batsmen are playing carefully in anticipation of the strategy break. So it looks as if the strategy break, while filling the IPL/Sony coffers, is proving to be a dampener in scoring.
- Afterwards the rate builds up to a high 10+ runs per over in the 20th overs.
- Can anyone throw a light on the significant dip in the 19th over. It is not because quite a few matches finished in the 19th over since the calculation is based on exact number of balls rather than no of overs. Possible reason might be that very few runs are needed for a win and teams do this carefully.
- The Standard Deviation/Average ratio seems to be quite high during the first 6 overs indicating significant variations. Then it seems to settle to similar levels. However it should be noted that the later overs have high averages.
- The first over has seen a few more wickets fall than the next 14. Again possibly the bowlers are getting the batsmen before they find their feet.
- The 8th over wickets per over value is the lowest at 0.15. Possibly because the teams are still in a Power Play mood in the 7th over and take an over to settle down.
- The 16-19 overs are approximately similar until there is an explosion of wickets in the 20th over, all particularly understandable.
2. IPL2: 20+ Runs overs bowled
No MtId Player Name For Vs Over
1.0048 Singh R.P/H'meet DC KKR 19 28 runs
2.0048 Mashrafe Mortaza KKR DC 20 26 runs
3.0050 Patel M.M RR DD 19 25 runs
4.0057 Sehwag V DD DC 6 25 runs
5.0009 Salvi A.M DD CSK 7 24 runs
6.0022 Kamran Khan RR CSK 18 24 runs
7.0034 Singh V.R.V KXP CSK 15 24 runs
8.0043 Shoaib S.M DC DD 6 24 runs
9.0030 Sreesanth S KXP RR 19 23 runs
10.0056 Singh R.P DC RCB 20 23 runs
11.0043 Vaas WPUJC DC DD 20 23 runs
12.0001 Flintoff A CSK MI 18 22 runs
13.0010 Patel M.M RR KKR 16 22 runs
14.0034 Sreesanth S KXP CSK 17 22 runs
15.0051 Tyagi S CSK KKR 6 22 runs
16.0053 Hodge B.J KKR RR 1 22 runs
17.0009 Flintoff A CSK DD 19 22 runs
18.0056 Kumar P RCB DC 5 22 runs
19.0027 Dinda A.B KKR KXP 4 22 runs
20.0027 Pathan I.K KXP KKR 20 21 runs
21.0042 Sreesanth S KXP MI 5 21 runs
22.0031 Nannes D.P DD KKR 3 21 runs
23.0057 Nannes D.P DD DC 1 21 runs
24.0024 Abdulla Y.A KXP RCB 18 21 runs
25.0008 Kumble A RCB DC 13 20 runs
26.0005 Kallis J.H RCB CSK 5 20 runs
27.0016 Shoaib S.M DC CSK 18 20 runs
28.0036 Sreesanth S KXP DC 17 20 runs
29.0036 Symonds A DC KXP 9 20 runs
30.0037 Harwood S.M RR CSK 16 20 runs
31.0041 Akhil B RCB KKR 17 20 runs
32.0041 Kallis J.H RCB KKR 20 20 runs
33.0016 Gony M.S CSK DC 2 20 runs
34.0021 Mishra A DD DC 13 20 runs
35.0059 Kumar P RCB DC 15 20 runs
First thing to be noted is that these are "score advance" runs, including all extras. RP Singh and Harmeet Singh share the worst over in IPL2, although RPS was indirectly responsible with his beamer-ban from the attack, it was Harmeett who conceded most of the runs. It is another story that Harmeet had a wonderful final. Then Mashrafe's ill-fated last over to Rohit Sharma, followed by Sehwag's desperate attempt to stifle Gilchrist and Patel's forgettable attempt against Deccan.
Sreesanth conceded 20 runs in an over in each of the first four matches he played after returning. Instead of concentrating on bowling he engaged in verbal jousts with great batsmen and paid the price. Once he settled down and let the ball instead of his mouth do the talking, he improved in the next three matches.
There have been 11 20+ over occurrences in the first 6 overs, only 3 occurrences in the overs 7-14 and 21 in the 15-20 overs. All perfectly logical figures.
Surprisingly Kolkata is the best team in this regard having conceded 20 runs only thrice. Chennai and Rajasthan follow with 4 each. Punjab is the worst offender in this, having done this no fewer than 7 times.
At the other end, Deccan batsmen have done this to the bowler 9 times, followed by Chennai and surprisingly Kolkata with 7 occurrences. Four teams, Mumbai, Rajasthan, Punjab and Rajasthan have achieved only 2 times each.
3. IPL2: Analysis of 10-Over scores - Runs scored in 10 overs
SNo. I MtId Team Vs @ 10 overs Final Result % Runs
1. 1 0017 MI KKR 111 for 0 187 for 6 Won 1.68 76
2. 2 0009 CSK DD 106 for 2 180 for 9 Lost 1.70 74
3. 1 0005 CSK RCB 106 for 0 179 for 5 Won 1.69 73
4. 2 0057 DC DD 102 for 3 154 for 4 Won 1.51 52
5. 2 0055 DD MI 93 for 1 166 for 6 Won 1.78 73
6. 1 0030 RR KXP 93 for 0 211 for 4 Won 2.27 118
7. 1 0008 DC RCB 91 for 2 184 for 6 Won 2.02 93
8. 1 0009 DD CSK 90 for 3 189 for 5 Won 2.10 99
9. 2 0034 KXP CSK 90 for 3 174 for 3 Lost 1.93 84
10. 1 0016 CSK DC 88 for 2 165 for 6 Lost 1.88 77
...
...
...
109. 2 0053 KKR RR 38 for 5 102 for 6 Won 2.68 64
110. 2 0002 RR RCB 32 for 5 58 for 10 Lost 1.81 26
111. 1 0004 KKR DC 31 for 3 101 for 10 Lost 3.26 70
Four teams, Chennai twice included, exceeded 100 runs in the first 10 overs. The first three teams lost the way in the next 10 overs. Gilchrist's blitzkrieg was the last instance. A few teams scored below 40 runs in the first 10 overs. One of the teams, Kolkata, recovered to win the match chasing a low total.
4. IPL2: Analysis of 10-Over scores - Ratio of final score to 10-over score
SNo. I MtId Team Vs @ 10 overs Final Result %
1. 1 0004 KKR DC 31 for 3 101 for 10 Lost 3.26
2. 1 0048 KKR DC 50 for 1 160 for 5 Lost 3.20
3. 1 0027 KKR KXP 52 for 1 153 for 3 Lost 2.94
4. 1 0028 MI RCB 53 for 3 149 for 4 Lost 2.81
5. 2 0008 RCB DC 57 for 3 160 for 8 Lost 2.81
6. 2 0047 CSK MI 56 for 2 151 for 3 Won 2.70
7. 1 0021 DC DD 55 for 4 148 for 9 Lost 2.69
8. 1 0035 MI DD 43 for 4 116 for 10 Lost 2.70
9. 2 0053 KKR RR 38 for 5 102 for 6 Won 2.68
10. 1 0056 RCB DC 64 for 2 170 for 4 Won 2.66
...
...
...
109. 2 0004 DC KKR 69 for 2 104 for 2 Won 1.51 35
110. 2 0017 KKR MI 70 for 2 95 for 10 Lost 1.36 25
111. 2 0029 DC CSK 79 for 5 100 for 10 Lost 1.27 21
Kolkata leads in the second half recoveries, almost tripling the score three times.
However it can be seen that most of the matches in which there have been very good recoveries after 10 overs have been lost. Similarly most of the matches in which teams started very well have been won, despite not maintaining the momentum. This indicates that it is very important to start well in the 10 overs. Second half recoveries seem to be like locking the doors after the horses have disappeared.
5. IPL2: Analysis of 10-Over scores - Runs added in second 10 overs
SNo. I MtId Team Vs @ 10 overs Final Result Runs
1. 1 0030 RR KXP 93 for 0 211 for 4 Won 118
2. 1 0048 KKR DC 50 for 1 160 for 5 Lost 110
3. 1 0056 RCB DC 64 for 2 170 for 4 Won 106
4. 2 0041 RCB KKR 70 for 2 176 for 4 Won 106
5. 2 0051 KKR CSK 83 for 1 189 for 3 Won 106
6. 1 0051 CSK KKR 83 for 2 188 for 3 Lost 105
7. 1 0034 CSK KXP 80 for 2 185 for 3 Won 105
8. 1 0041 KKR RCB 69 for 2 173 for 4 Lost 104
9. 2 0008 RCB DC 57 for 3 160 for 8 Lost 103
10. 1 0001 MI CSK 64 for 1 165 for 7 Won 101
11. 1 0027 KKR KXP 52 for 1 153 for 3 Lost 101
...
...
...
107. 1 0053 RR KKR 61 for 5 101 for 9 Lost 40
108. 2 0005 RCB CSK 56 for 5 87 for 10 Lost 31
109. 2 0002 RR RCB 32 for 5 58 for 10 Lost 26
110. 2 0017 KKR MI 70 for 2 95 for 10 Lost 25
111. 2 0029 DC CSK 79 for 5 100 for 10 Lost 21
Rajasthan, led by Smith, added the maximum runs, 118 to be precise, during the second half. Kolkata added 110 runs and three teams added 106 runs.
6. IPL2: Analysis of maidens bowled
No Bowler Team Mat Overs Mdns % Mdns
1 Harris R.J DC 8 31.0 2 6.45
2 Malinga S.L MI 13 49.3 2 4.04
3 du Preez D RCB 2 7.0 1 14.29
4 Mascarenhas A.D RR 6 19.2 1 5.17
5 Lee B KXP 5 20.0 1 5.00
6 Edwards F.H DC 6 23.2 1 4.29
7 Abdulla Y.A KXP 9 28.0 1 3.57
8 Patel M.M RR 12 34.5 1 2.87
9 Morkel J.A CSK 12 40.0 1 2.50
10 Mishra A DD 11 42.0 1 2.38
11 Chawla P.P KXP 14 44.5 1 2.23
12 Kallis J.H RCB 15 46.0 1 2.17
13 Sangwan P DD 13 46.4 1 2.14
14 Kumar P RCB 13 49.4 1 2.01
15 Muralitharan M CSK 13 50.0 1 2.00
16 Pathan I.K KXP 14 50.2 1 1.99
17 Nehra A DD 13 51.0 1 1.96
18 Kumble A RCB 16 59.1 1 1.69
19 Singh R.P DC 16 59.4 1 1.68
A total of 21 maidens were bowled by 19 bowlers. Only Malinga and Harris bowled two each. Can any one forget Malinga's famous last-over double-wicket maiden against Deccan. Similarly no one can ever forget Harris' first over maiden in which he captured 2 wickets which paved the way for the semi final win over Delhi. Also his other maiden was again the first over against Bangalore in the final. Note also du Preez's bowling a maiden in the 7 overs he bowled.
7. IPL2: Highest Boundary % share in batsman innings (>66.7% in 50+ score)
No MtId Player Name For Vs Runs Balls S/R 4-6s %
1.0057 Gilchrist A.C DC DD 85 35 242.9 70 82.4%
2.0009 Dilshan T.M DD CSK 50 27 185.2 40 80.0%
3.0043 Gilchrist A.C DC DD 64 33 193.9 50 78.1%
4.0018 Pathan Y.K RR DD 62 30 206.7 48 77.4%
5.0051 McCullum B.B KKR CSK 81 48 168.8 62 76.5%
6.0034 Hayden M.L CSK KXP 89 58 153.4 68 76.4%
7.0008 Gilchrist A.C DC RCB 71 45 157.8 54 76.1%
8.0005 Hayden M.L CSK RCB 65 35 185.7 48 73.8%
9.0030 Ojha N.V RR KXP 68 51 133.3 50 73.5%
10.0034 Katich S.M KXP CSK 50 25 200.0 36 72.0%
11.0024 Yuvraj Singh KXP RCB 50 34 147.1 36 72.0%
12.0041 Taylor R.L RCB KKR 81 33 245.5 58 71.6%
13.0022 Raina S.K CSK RR 98 55 178.2 70 71.4%
14.0034 Dhoni M.S CSK KXP 56 27 207.4 40 71.4%
15.0037 Badrinath S CSK RR 59 41 143.9 42 71.2%
16.0017 Tendulkar S.R MI KKR 68 45 151.1 48 70.6%
17.0030 Smith G.C RR KXP 77 44 175.0 54 70.1%
18.0028 Uthappa A.R RCB MI 66 42 157.1 44 66.7%
19.0009 Hayden M.L CSK DD 57 27 211.1 38 66.7%
This table analyzes the % of runs scored in boundaries in an innings. Only innings exceeding 50 are considered. Gilchrist's semi-final masterpiece leads the pack with an astounding 82.4% in boundaries. Dilshan's 80% in his knock of 50 separates another Gilchrist blitz. Yusuf Pathan and McCullum follow next with over 75%.
8. IPL2: Defending wins
No. MtId FBt Score Vs Score
1. 0030 RR 211 for 4 KXP 133 for 8
2. 0009 DD 189 for 5 CSK 180 for 9
3. 0017 MI 187 for 6 KKR 95 for 10
4. 0034 CSK 185 for 3 KXP 174 for 3
5. 0008 DC 184 for 6 RCB 160 for 8
6. 0005 CSK 179 for 5 RCB 87 for 10
7. 0029 CSK 178 for 3 DC 100 for 10
8. 0043 DD 173 for 7 DC 161 for 10
9. 0056 RCB 170 for 4 DC 158 for 6
10. 0012 DC 168 for 9 MI 156 for 7
11. 0040 DC 166 for 7 RR 113 for 10
12. 0001 MI 165 for 7 CSK 146 for 7
13. 0022 CSK 164 for 5 RR 126 for 10
14. 0026 CSK 163 for 10 DD 145 for 8
15. 0038 MI 157 for 2 RCB 141 for 7
16. 0050 DD 150 for 3 RR 136 for 9
17. 0010 RR 150 for 6 KKR 150 for 8
18. 0023 MI 148 for 6 KKR 139 for 6
19. 0045 RR 145 for 7 MI 143 for 10
20. 0024 RCB 145 for 9 KXP 137 for 7
21. 0032 DC 145 for 6 MI 126 for 8
22. 0059 DC 143 for 6 RCB 137 for 9
23. 0015 KXP 139 for 6 RR 112 for 7
24. 0049 KXP 134 for 7 DC 133 for 8
25. 0002 RCB 133 for 8 RR 58 for 10
26. 0020 KXP 119 for 8 MI 116 for 7
27. 0054 CSK 116 for 9 KXP 92 for 8
9. IPL2: Chasing wins
No. MtId FBt Score Vs Score
1. 0051 CSK 188 for 3 KKR 189 for 3
2. 0041 KKR 173 for 4 RCB 176 for 4
3. 0011 RCB 168 for 9 KXP 173 for 3
4. 0036 DC 168 for 5 KXP 169 for 7
5. 0016 CSK 165 for 6 DC 169 for 4
6. 0055 MI 165 for 8 DD 166 for 6
7. 0048 KKR 160 for 5 DC 166 for 4
8. 0006 KXP 158 for 6 KKR 79 for 1
9. 0031 KKR 154 for 3 DD 157 for 1
10. 0027 KKR 153 for 3 KXP 154 for 4
11. 0057 DD 153 for 8 DC 154 for 4
12. 0028 MI 149 for 4 RCB 150 for 1
13. 0014 RCB 149 for 7 DD 150 for 4
14. 0021 DC 148 for 9 DD 150 for 4
15. 0047 MI 147 for 5 CSK 151 for 3
16. 0058 CSK 146 for 5 RCB 149 for 4
17. 0018 DD 143 for 7 RR 147 for 5
18. 0025 DC 141 for 5 RR 142 for 7
19. 0037 RR 140 for 7 CSK 141 for 3
20. 0019 KKR 139 for 6 RCB 143 for 5
21. 0052 DD 134 for 7 RCB 135 for 3
22. 0044 CSK 129 for 10 RCB 132 for 8
23. 0039 KKR 123 for 8 DD 125 for 3
24. 0046 DD 120 for 9 KXP 123 for 4
25. 0042 KXP 119 for 9 MI 122 for 2
26. 0035 MI 116 for 10 DD 118 for 3
27. 0033 RCB 105 for 10 RR 107 for 3
28. 0003 KXP 104 for 7 DD 58 for 0
29. 0053 RR 101 for 9 KKR 102 for 6
30. 0004 KKR 101 for 10 DC 104 for 2
The above two tables are to be seen together.
21 teams exceeded 160 runs and two thirds of these totals were defended. On 7 occasions these totals were chased. This indicates that a good par score for the tournament was 160 which gave a 66.7% chance of winning. If we look at 150+ totals reached by 28 teams, 17 defended the totals while 11 chased successfully. The success % drops to 60%. So I will stick to 160, which is likely to be the par score at England during the T20 World Cup also.
8 teams which won defending their scores have dismissed the other teams, mostly for low scores. Only one team which was all out defended its total. On the other hand all 4 teams which were all out have lost their matches. Thus out of 13 all-out situations, 12 lost their matches. Most of the dismissals have been for sub-140 scores. Again perfectly understandable.
Comments (30)
May 22, 2009
Summary tables on Test batsmen
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Batting
I came out with an article on Test Batsmen a few days back and this article received an unprecedented number of responses. There were a number of useful suggestions and I am considering incorporation of a number of these suggestions. Since this process is going to take some time and I also have a number of T20/IPL analysis to be done, I have come out, in the interim, with a number of useful batsmen tables. The purpose of these are to provide at one place very useful information for comparison. There are no assumptions or parameters in these tables and what is presented are only facts. I have made only some explanatory comments on these tables.
The weighted bowling quality measure, which has been shown as the last column in all the tables, has been derived by using the career-to-date values as suggested by many readers. There is no major difference. However there is no doubt that this is the correct method. The real difference is with the lesser bowlers. For the great bowlers with 300+ wickets in their career, the CtD averages do not show any significant variation once a certain stage of career has been crossed.
1. Top run scorers for 8 periods
Aus Ponting R.T 2000s 8864 @ 59.89 36.00
Saf Kallis J.H 2000s 8428 @ 58.94 37.69
Aus Hayden M.L 2000s 8365 @ 52.94 36.23
Ind Dravid R 2000s 8125 @ 53.45 37.62
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2000s 6932 @ 52.92 37.74
Slk Jayawardene D.P.M.D 2000s 6581 @ 56.25 38.81
Win Lara B.C 2000s 6380 @ 54.07 34.43
Saf Smith G.C 2000s 6343 @ 50.34 38.70
Win Chanderpaul S 2000s 6342 @ 53.29 35.04
Ind Laxman V.V.S 2000s 6115 @ 49.72 36.61
Eng Stewart A.J 1990s 6409 @ 40.82 35.22
Aus Waugh M.E 1990s 6371 @ 41.64 36.73
Aus Taylor M.A 1990s 6306 @ 40.95 36.75
Eng Atherton M.A 1990s 6217 @ 38.38 34.31
Aus Waugh S.R 1990s 6213 @ 53.10 36.17
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1990s 5626 @ 58.00 37.97
Win Lara B.C 1990s 5573 @ 51.60 36.12
Slk de Silva P.A 1990s 4448 @ 46.82 37.85
Aus Slater M.J 1990s 4425 @ 45.15 37.02
Aus Boon D.C 1990s 4303 @ 45.29 38.61
Aus Border A.R 1980s 7418 @ 54.54 34.54
Eng Gower D.I 1980s 6196 @ 42.44 33.86
Pak Javed Miandad 1980s 5642 @ 54.78 37.02
Win Richards I.V.A 1980s 5209 @ 49.61 35.04
Win Greenidge C.G 1980s 5151 @ 45.99 35.43
Ind Gavaskar S.M 1970s 5647 @ 55.91 37.72
Ind Viswanath G.R 1970s 4611 @ 46.11 36.56
Aus Chappell G.S 1970s 4357 @ 53.79 36.08
Win Kallicharran A.I 1970s 3917 @ 49.58 34.70
Win Fredericks R.C 1970s 3809 @ 45.89 33.59
Eng Barrington K.F 1960s 6397 @ 59.79 37.82
Eng Cowdrey M.C 1960s 4788 @ 48.86 36.99
Aus Lawry W.M 1960s 4717 @ 49.65 37.27
Win Sobers G.St.A 1960s 4563 @ 60.04 36.48
Eng Dexter E.R 1960s 4232 @ 50.38 36.91
Eng Hutton L 40s-50s 5626 @ 54.62 39.27
Eng Compton D.C.S 40s-50s 5339 @ 49.90 40.02
Aus Harvey R.N 40s-50s 5107 @ 52.65 38.51
Win EdeC Weekes 40s-50s 4455 @ 58.62 37.83
Eng May P.B.H 40s-50s 4182 @ 49.20 36.49
Eng Hammond W.R WW1-WW2 6883 @ 61.46 42.87
Aus Bradman D.G WW1-WW2 5093 @ 97.94 34.50
Eng Sutcliffe H WW1-WW2 4555 @ 60.73 40.35
Eng Hendren E.H WW1-WW2 3525 @ 47.64 41.52
Eng Hobbs J.B WW1-WW2 2945 @ 56.63 39.95
Aus Hill C Pre-WW1 3412 @ 39.22 34.27
Aus Trumper V.T Pre-WW1 3163 @ 39.05 33.66
Eng Hobbs J.B Pre-WW1 2465 @ 57.33 32.64
Aus Gregory S.E Pre-WW1 2282 @ 24.54 31.60
Aus Armstrong W.W Pre-WW1 2247 @ 35.67 32.49
Note the current decade. All the ten batsmen, barring Laxman who chips in with 49.72 have averaged above 50. During the 1990s, only the three great batsmen, Steve Waugh, Tendulkar and Lara exceed 50. During the 1980s, only Border and the incomparable Miandad exceeded 50. Gavaskar, Greg Chappell and Boycott exceeded 50 during the 70's. During the early periods, Sobers, Hammond and Sutcliffe exceeded 60. Note the poor bowling faced by Hammond, however. All these are in the Top-10.
To peruse the complete table, please click here.
2. Top 20 aggregate scorers during a calendar year
Pak Mohammad Yousuf 2006 1788 @ 99.33 35.80
Win Richards I.V.A 1976 1710 @ 90.00 32.31
Ind Gavaskar S.M 1979 1696 @ 62.81 32.93
Saf Smith G.C 2008 1656 @ 72.00 41.33
Aus Ponting R.T 2005 1540 @ 66.96 34.66
Aus Ponting R.T 2003 1503 @ 100.20 41.81
Eng Vaughan M.P 2002 1481 @ 61.71 33.95
Aus Langer J.L 2004 1481 @ 54.85 36.76
Ind Sehwag V 2008 1462 @ 56.23 36.16
Ind Viswanath G.R 1979 1420 @ 56.80 32.90
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2002 1392 @ 55.68 40.08
Aus Hayden M.L 2001 1391 @ 63.23 36.46
Aus Simpson R.B 1964 1381 @ 60.04 43.94
Aus Hayden M.L 2005 1380 @ 53.08 34.23
Eng Amiss D.L 1974 1379 @ 68.95 36.32
Ind Dravid R 2002 1357 @ 59.00 39.39
Aus Martyn D.R 2004 1353 @ 56.38 35.23
Win Lara B.C 2003 1344 @ 74.67 34.35
Eng Pietersen K.P 2006 1343 @ 53.72 32.81
Aus Ponting R.T 2006 1333 @ 88.87 33.00
...
...
Win Sobers G.St.A 1958 1193 @ 132.56 35.24
Note the fantastic aggregates of the under-rated Mohammd Yousuf, Richards, Gavaskar, Smith and Ponting (twice). Also the 100+ averages of Sobers and Ponting.
To peruse the complete table, please click here.
3. Top scorers vs each team
Eng Hobbs J.B Australia 3636 @ 54.27 36.95
Eng Gower D.I Australia 3269 @ 44.78 35.69
Eng Boycott G Australia 2945 @ 47.50 37.25
Win Lara B.C Australia 2856 @ 51.00 31.39
Eng Hammond W.R Australia 2852 @ 51.85 39.95
Ind Gavaskar S.M West Indies 2749 @ 65.45 39.59
Eng Boycott G West Indies 2205 @ 45.94 34.79
Eng Gooch G.A West Indies 2197 @ 44.84 28.55
Aus Waugh S.R West Indies 2192 @ 49.82 34.92
Saf Kallis J.H West Indies 2073 @ 74.04 39.81
Win Lloyd C.H India 2344 @ 58.60 37.37
Pak Javed Miandad India 2228 @ 67.52 39.45
Win Richards I.V.A India 1927 @ 50.71 37.42
Win Sobers G.St.A India 1920 @ 83.48 37.07
Aus Hayden M.L India 1888 @ 59.00 37.76
Aus Bradman D.G England 5028 @ 89.79 34.28
Aus Border A.R England 3548 @ 56.32 36.08
Win Sobers G.St.A England 3214 @ 60.64 34.52
Aus Waugh S.R England 3200 @ 58.18 38.13
Win Lara B.C England 2983 @ 62.15 39.14
Pak Inzamam-ul-Haq Sri Lanka 1559 @ 59.96 39.03
Ind Tendulkar S.R Sri Lanka 1408 @ 56.32 38.56
Ind Azharuddin M Sri Lanka 1215 @ 55.23 40.34
Nzl Fleming S.P Sri Lanka 1166 @ 58.30 39.14
Win Lara B.C Sri Lanka 1125 @ 86.54 33.76
Eng Compton D.C.S South Africa 2205 @ 53.78 43.98
Eng Hammond W.R South Africa 2188 @ 62.51 44.29
Aus Ponting R.T South Africa 2030 @ 56.39 31.34
Win Lara B.C South Africa 1715 @ 49.00 31.96
Aus Harvey R.N South Africa 1625 @ 81.25 43.52
Ind Gavaskar S.M Pakistan 2089 @ 56.46 35.01
Aus Border A.R Pakistan 1666 @ 59.50 34.36
Aus Chappell G.S Pakistan 1581 @ 63.24 37.65
Slk Jayasuriya S.T Pakistan 1490 @ 51.38 35.42
Slk de Silva P.A Pakistan 1475 @ 42.14 35.52
Pak Javed Miandad New Zealand 1919 @ 79.96 42.31
Aus Border A.R New Zealand 1500 @ 51.72 35.72
Ind Tendulkar S.R New Zealand 1406 @ 52.07 34.82
Saf Kallis J.H New Zealand 1356 @ 67.80 40.58
Ind Dravid R New Zealand 1318 @ 59.91 33.63
Slk Atapattu M.S Zimbabwe 1145 @ 95.42 48.01
Ind Dravid R Zimbabwe 979 @ 97.90 42.11
Ind Tendulkar S.R Zimbabwe 918 @ 76.50 42.62
Nzl Astle N.J Zimbabwe 813 @ 50.81 40.86
Pak Inzamam-ul-Haq Zimbabwe 772 @ 42.89 42.03
Slk Sangakkara K.C Bangladesh 876 @ 73.00 46.75
Slk Jayawardene D.P.M.D Bangladesh 863 @ 66.38 47.63
Slk Dilshan T.M Bangladesh 771 @ 77.10 43.68
Saf Smith G.C Bangladesh 743 @ 82.56 51.82
Slk Samaraweera T.T Bangladesh 600 @ 66.67 45.56
Sehwag and Taylor against Pakistan, Kallis against West Indies, Javed Miandad against New Zealand, Sobers and Zaheer Abbas against India, Lara against Sri Lanka, Harvey and Jayawardene against South Africa and of course Bradman against England are the stand-out performers.
To peruse the complete table, please click here.
4. Top 20 away scorers
Ind Tendulkar S.R 7165 @ 54.28 37.18
Ind Dravid R 6430 @ 56.90 37.50
Win Lara B.C 5736 @ 47.80 34.12
Aus Border A.R 5431 @ 56.57 36.32
Win Richards I.V.A 5404 @ 50.50 34.98
Pak Inzamam-ul-Haq 5226 @ 47.94 37.92
Aus Waugh S.R 5217 @ 55.50 36.68
Ind Gavaskar S.M 5055 @ 52.11 36.94
Saf Kallis J.H 4713 @ 52.37 36.46
Aus Ponting R.T 4680 @ 50.87 35.89
Win Lloyd C.H 4634 @ 46.81 34.32
Pak Javed Miandad 4351 @ 45.80 34.31
Win Greenidge C.G 4349 @ 42.22 35.22
Eng Hammond W.R 4245 @ 66.33 43.22
Nzl Fleming S.P 4225 @ 45.92 36.68
Eng Cowdrey M.C 4087 @ 44.91 35.90
Win Chanderpaul S 4082 @ 42.52 34.10
Ind Ganguly S.C 4032 @ 41.57 37.68
Aus Waugh M.E 4010 @ 40.51 37.17
Win Sobers G.St.A 3957 @ 50.73 33.67
...
...
Aus Bradman D.G 2674 @ 102.85 35.18
The list is headed by Tendulkar and followed by two great contemporary batsmen. Tendulkar has been equally effective home and away while Dravid has been better away. Lara has significantly under-performed away from home, but against very good bowling attacks. Hammond has a very high away average, tempered by the fact that a lot of these runs have been scored against weak bowling attackes. For the record, Bradman has the highest away batting average. Note Steve Waugh's excellent away average.
To peruse the complete table, please click here.
5. Vs Team performance for selected 5 players
Eng Hobbs J.B Aus 3636 @ 54.27 36.95
Eng Hobbs J.B Saf 1562 @ 60.08 33.52
Eng Hobbs J.B Win 212 @ 106.00 53.90
Career Total 5410 @ 56.95 36.62
Aus Bradman D.G Eng 5028 @ 89.79 34.28
Aus Bradman D.G Ind 715 @ 178.75 45.15
Aus Bradman D.G Saf 806 @ 201.50 36.54
Aus Bradman D.G Win 447 @ 74.50 45.89
Career Total 6996 @ 99.94 36.39
Win Richards I.V.A Aus 2266 @ 44.43 33.79
Win Richards I.V.A Eng 2869 @ 62.37 35.40
Win Richards I.V.A Ind 1927 @ 50.71 37.42
Win Richards I.V.A Nzl 387 @ 43.00 30.80
Win Richards I.V.A Pak 1091 @ 41.96 32.44
Career Total 8540 @ 50.24 34.84
Ind Tendulkar S.R Aus 2748 @ 56.08 34.45
Ind Tendulkar S.R Bng 556 @ 139.00 44.19
Ind Tendulkar S.R Eng 2150 @ 61.43 40.07
Ind Tendulkar S.R Nzl 1406 @ 52.07 34.82
Ind Tendulkar S.R Pak 1057 @ 42.28 36.08
Ind Tendulkar S.R Saf 1202 @ 35.35 35.16
Ind Tendulkar S.R Slk 1408 @ 56.32 38.56
Ind Tendulkar S.R Win 1328 @ 57.74 41.18
Ind Tendulkar S.R Zim 918 @ 76.50 42.62
Career Total 12773 @ 54.59 37.80
Win Lara B.C Aus 2856 @ 51.00 31.39
Win Lara B.C Bng 173 @ 86.50 45.84
Win Lara B.C Eng 2983 @ 62.15 39.14
Win Lara B.C Ind 1002 @ 34.55 35.36
Win Lara B.C Nzl 704 @ 41.41 39.19
Win Lara B.C Pak 1173 @ 53.32 34.95
Win Lara B.C Saf 1715 @ 49.00 31.96
Win Lara B.C Slk 1125 @ 86.54 33.76
Win Lara B.C Zim 222 @ 55.50 44.09
Career Total 11953 @ 52.89 35.22
Hobbs and Bradman have scored most of their runs against the good attacks of Australia/England and South Africa. Almost all of Richards' runs have come against good attacks. The major difference between Tendulkar and Lara is that Tendulkar has scored nearly 1500 runs against the weak attacks of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Lara has scored only 400 runs against these attacks. This explains the overall poorer bowling quality faced by Tendulkar.
To peruse the complete table, please click here.
6. Career progression for 5 selected players
Eng Hobbs J.B 1908 302 @ 43.14 30.01
Eng Hobbs J.B 1909 132 @ 26.40 31.70
Eng Hobbs J.B 1910 539 @ 67.38 27.25
Eng Hobbs J.B 1911 85 @ 42.50 30.89
Eng Hobbs J.B 1912 964 @ 68.86 32.53
Eng Hobbs J.B 1913 105 @ 52.50 41.95
Eng Hobbs J.B 1914 338 @ 67.60 41.78
Eng Hobbs J.B 1920 108 @ 54.00 48.56
Eng Hobbs J.B 1921 397 @ 49.62 41.40
Eng Hobbs J.B 1924 527 @ 75.29 32.94
Eng Hobbs J.B 1925 401 @ 57.29 35.82
Eng Hobbs J.B 1926 486 @ 81.00 35.17
Eng Hobbs J.B 1928 312 @ 62.40 49.64
Eng Hobbs J.B 1929 413 @ 51.62 45.54
Eng Hobbs J.B 1930 301 @ 33.44 42.62
Career Total 5410 @ 56.95 36.61
Aus Bradman D.G 1928 19 @ 9.50 29.26
Aus Bradman D.G 1929 449 @ 89.80 28.28
Aus Bradman D.G 1930 978 @ 122.25 35.37
Aus Bradman D.G 1931 781 @ 111.57 41.82
Aus Bradman D.G 1932 468 @ 234.00 36.57
Aus Bradman D.G 1933 396 @ 56.57 35.79
Aus Bradman D.G 1934 758 @ 94.75 33.14
Aus Bradman D.G 1936 120 @ 30.00 28.27
Aus Bradman D.G 1937 690 @ 138.00 28.98
Aus Bradman D.G 1938 434 @ 108.50 35.44
Aus Bradman D.G 1946 421 @ 210.50 39.76
Aus Bradman D.G 1947 457 @ 65.29 42.49
Aus Bradman D.G 1948 1025 @ 113.89 41.68
Career Total 6996 @ 99.94 36.39
Win Richards I.V.A 1974 199 @ 99.50 32.76
Win Richards I.V.A 1975 272 @ 20.92 33.41
Win Richards I.V.A 1976 1710 @ 90.00 32.31
Win Richards I.V.A 1977 257 @ 28.56 34.98
Win Richards I.V.A 1978 62 @ 31.00 40.15
Win Richards I.V.A 1979 140 @ 140.00 33.86
Win Richards I.V.A 1980 857 @ 65.92 31.39
Win Richards I.V.A 1981 474 @ 67.71 34.03
Win Richards I.V.A 1982 158 @ 39.50 27.15
Win Richards I.V.A 1983 588 @ 39.20 43.49
Win Richards I.V.A 1984 789 @ 46.41 35.58
Win Richards I.V.A 1985 383 @ 54.71 35.01
Win Richards I.V.A 1986 506 @ 50.60 31.38
Win Richards I.V.A 1987 300 @ 42.86 35.19
Win Richards I.V.A 1988 867 @ 51.00 35.39
Win Richards I.V.A 1989 287 @ 35.88 38.29
Win Richards I.V.A 1990 141 @ 28.20 45.25
Win Richards I.V.A 1991 550 @ 39.29 39.13
Career Total 8540 @ 50.24 34.83
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1989 215 @ 35.83 35.40
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1990 373 @ 41.44 37.42
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1991 78 @ 19.50 31.68
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1992 419 @ 41.90 40.75
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1993 640 @ 91.43 40.95
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1994 700 @ 70.00 40.41
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1995 58 @ 29.00 45.67
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1996 623 @ 41.53 39.98
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1997 1000 @ 62.50 37.20
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1998 647 @ 80.88 35.63
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1999 1088 @ 68.00 34.72
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2000 575 @ 63.89 38.69
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2001 1003 @ 62.69 35.61
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2002 1392 @ 55.68 40.08
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2003 153 @ 17.00 37.16
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2004 915 @ 91.50 36.27
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2005 444 @ 44.40 37.39
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2006 267 @ 24.27 37.51
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2007 776 @ 55.43 40.63
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2008 1063 @ 48.32 37.05
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2009 344 @ 68.80 33.11
Career Total 12773 @ 54.59 37.79
Win Lara B.C 1990 49 @ 24.50 29.55
Win Lara B.C 1992 195 @ 32.50 43.13
Win Lara B.C 1993 586 @ 58.60 36.62
Win Lara B.C 1994 996 @ 71.14 39.55
Win Lara B.C 1995 1222 @ 67.89 38.09
Win Lara B.C 1996 226 @ 25.11 43.84
Win Lara B.C 1997 859 @ 40.90 34.98
Win Lara B.C 1998 608 @ 43.43 33.44
Win Lara B.C 1999 832 @ 59.43 28.49
Win Lara B.C 2000 497 @ 29.24 28.28
Win Lara B.C 2001 1151 @ 63.94 29.93
Win Lara B.C 2002 351 @ 35.10 35.93
Win Lara B.C 2003 1344 @ 74.67 34.35
Win Lara B.C 2004 1178 @ 58.90 39.10
Win Lara B.C 2005 1110 @ 65.29 35.12
Win Lara B.C 2006 749 @ 41.61 36.39
Career Total 11953 @ 52.89 35.21
Note how Richards finished his career. The last 5 years have been well below the high standards he had set. The other batsmen have finished well, Tendulkar playing very well and counting. He is going to comfortably maintain the career average of around 55+ to the end.
To peruse the complete table, please click here.
So that the readers can download these six tables and study at leisure I have uploaded the zip file.. Please click here to download the zip file.
Finally I have given below an idea of the changes expected to be done when I re-do the Top Test Batsmen analysis.
1. Use CtD bowling values.
2. Use new Wted Bow Index, using Average and Strike rate, based on Arjun Hemnani's suggestion.
3. Remove Scoring Rate measure.
4. Reduce % Team share weight to 5%.
5. Work out Consistency index for 5% based on 10-Test slices for each batsman.
6. Improve the pitch Index calculations.
7. Determine match performance figures based on number of innings played.
8. Prepare two independent sets of tables: Pre-1940 and Post-1945.
9. Finally R-Factor (you have to wait for the article to know about this).
Comments (86)
May 17, 2009
T20 bowling - a lateral look
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Twenty20
|
|
|
Despite all his experience, Chaminda Vaas went for 23 runs in an over in the IPL
© Associated Press
|
| A hectic and harrowing few days have left me longing for an article which will not have over 100 responses daily, quite a few of them calling for my blood. Hence before I do the follow-up article to the Test batsmen one, I decided to do a simple one which will elicit few, but informed, responses and will be of interest to the discerning readers.
It is my pet theory that it does not matter which bowler the captain bowls in T20.
If the batsman sets his mind, any bowler will go for plenty. This has been substantiated by the happenings in the IPL. The bowlers who have gone for plenty (around 20 runs) are the experienced bowlers such as Flintoff (twice), Agarkar, Vettori (19), Sreesanth (thrice), Ishanth Sharma, Vaas (the 23-run last over) et al. The lesser bowlers also did go but not like this. Hence I decided to put this, possibly unsound, theory to test.
This analysis pertains to T20 International matches. Reluctantly I have come to the conclusion that the IPL is not going away and am building my data base. So the IPL analysis will follow later. I may not be a great fan of IPL, but that entity is a treasure-trove for analysis.
Again the selection criteria plays an important part. I have set the criteria as players who have bowled in a minimum of 3 matches. Since the maximum number of matches for a bowler is 17, this represents a sub-20% lower limit. Initially I set 5 matches as the criteria but enough bowlers did not come through. These and the "all bowlers" data is also summarised later. This is the only criteria I have set. The measure used for classification is Balls per (Bowler) match.
The BpM measure ranges from 24.0 for a few bowlers to around 10.0 for some others. 141 bowlers satisfy this criteria (bowled in 3 or more matches) and are available for analysis. Out of these, 65 bowlers have bowled 21.0 balls or more indicating that these are very regular bowlers. 14 bowlers have bowled 15 balls or less. The middle group, between 15 and 21 balls per match can be termed as somewhat regular bowlers. These limits are used only for some form of classification and are not set in stone. Now let us look at how these bowlers, as a group have performed.
Only bowlers who have bowled in minimum of 3 matches
BpM Bow Balls Runs Wkts St/Rt RpO
Very regular bowlers >=21 65 9825 11245 535 18.36 6.87
Regular bowlers 15-21 62 6298 7752 331 19.03 7.39
Irregular bowlers <15 14 825 1181 41 20.12 7.14
Total 141 16948 20178 907 18.69 7.14
The averaging has been done within a group. The first group denotes bowlers who have almost always completed their spells barring very few matches. The third group denotes bowlers who have rarely completed their spells. The middle group comprises of bowlers who bowled regularly in a support manner. Quite a few of them might have completed their spells also.
What is amazing is that the Strike Rate and RpO among the three groups does not vary that much. There is a differential of less than 10% between the values. If anything, the third group has a better RpO than the middle group.
Compare these with the total figures. Again less than 10% variation.
It seems to give substance to my own conclusion that the lesser bowlers do as well or as badly as the better bowlers particularly during the later half of the innings. No captain would like to take the opening overs lightly.
Now we can see two other summaries. The first is the one where the bar is set higher, to a minimum of 5 matches in which the bowler should have bowled. The second is the one including all bowlers who ever delivered a ball. Hence there is an additional classification in the last table.
Only bowlers who have bowled in minimum of 5 matches
BpM Bow Balls Runs Wkts St/Rt RpO
Very regular bowlers >=21 40 7904 9105 427 18.51 6.91
Regular bowlers 18-21 20 2988 3676 167 17.89 7.38
Irregular bowlers <18 14 1754 2394 86 20.40 8.19
Total 74 12646 15175 680 18.60 7.20
All matches - No limit
BpM Bow Balls Runs Wkts St/Rt RpO
Very regular bowlers >=21 105 11146 12960 602 18.51 6.98
Regular bowlers 18-21 62 4910 5960 269 18.25 7.28
Irregular bowlers 12-18 52 2932 3934 143 20.50 8.05
Casual bowlers <12 32 421 623 22 19.14 8.88
Total 251 19409 23477 1036 18.73 7.26
The results are self-explanatory. There is very little difference between the groups, even in the last one.
Does it mean the bowlers are irrelevant in T20 matches and that the team can field 11 batsmen, a few of them bowling their part-time spin/pace. No way. The team might score 250 quite frequently but almost always the opposing team would knock off these runs in 18 overs.
It is also true that in places like South Africa, where the current IPL is a revelation, quite a few totals of around 150 have been defended successfully. In these places I would advocate a 4 full time bowlers + 7 batsmen (incl keeper). Flintoff/IrfanPathan//Kallis would be considered full-time bowlers. The fifth bowler quota could be met from amongst the batsmen who could bowl. One cannot take any chances in these types of pitches where low totals might have to be defended more often than not.
However the situation is different on the very good batting pitches like the subcontinent where the regular bowler is as likely to go for as many runs as the part-timer. Here it makes sense to play only 3 full-time bowlers and meet the fourth and fifth bowler quotas from amongst the 3/4 batsmen/all-rounders. This would leave enough batting fire-power to chase any total. The adage of "6 batsmen should do the job" might hold good in Tests and, to a lesser extent, ODIs but not in T20 because of the high risks needed to be undertaken by the batsmen. However one should not compromise on the three bowlers. That should comprise of a very good opening pair and a top-flight spinner.
Let me sum this in a different way. I think the captain should be able to say, in a subcontinent match, that his strengthened batting lineup would chase whatever total the other team puts up and of course, up his own team's target score, batting first, by about 20%. On the other hand, the captain in a match in South Africa, should be able to say that his better set of bowlers would defend even a lower total and of course, be able to lower his own team's target score, batting first, by about 20%. These ideas go against the normal thinking that in subcontinent one should strengthen the bowling and on bowler-friendly pitches strengthen the batting.
Let me illustrate my idea with two team selections.
India
In the sub-continent In South Africa et al
Gambhir Gambhir
Sehwag Sehwag
Raina Raina
Yuvraj Singh Yuvraj Singh
R.Sharma R.Sharma
Dhoni Dhoni
Y Pathan Y Pathan
A Nayar / Badrinath P Ojha
Harbhajan Harbhajan
Zaheer Khan Zaheer Khan
R.P.Singh R.P.Singh
The only difference is at no.8 where in the sub-continent a batsman Abhishek Nayar/Badrinath plays while at South Africa, the bowler Ojha plays. These may not be the exact players to consider, but the reader should get the drift. The underlying assumption is that Ojha might go for as many runs as a combination of Nayar/Sharma but Nayar or Badrinath would give the batting edge. A similar exercise for Australia.
Australia
In the sub-continent In South Africa et al
Haddin Haddin
Clarke Clarke
Ponting Ponting
M Hussey M Hussey
Symonds Symonds
Watson Watson
Hopes Hopes
D Hussey / Warner Hilfenhaus
Johnson Johnson
Lee Lee
Bracken Bracken
Here the choice could be between D.Hussey/Warner who are primarily batsmen and Hilfenhaus, a bowler. D Hussey could as well bowl a few overs in India as Hilfenhaus.
The choice for Sri Lanka could be between Kandamby/Silva (batsman) and Thushara (bowler). For England it could be between Mascarenhas and Anderson. For Pakistan the choice could be between Fawad Alam and Shoaib Akhtar. And so on.
Umar Gul, Vettori, Afridi, Stuart Clark, Abdur Razzak, RP Singh, Shoaib Malik et al are representative of very good T20 bowlers and bowlers like these and others cannot easily be replaced by the casual bowlers.
To all the readers:
I have mentioned in my replies to your comments that all my analysis is based on the scorecard data since I do not have access to the proprietary ball-by-ball data.
However I have seen that there is quite a lot of over-based data available in public domain.
I also realize that to do a proper analysis of the bowlers and their deployment, it is necessary for me to use what is available in the public domain and develop my own over-based data.
I have started work on this and once that work is over, expected to take about a week, I should be able to do much more in-depth analysis of T20 and IPL matches and then we can look at this particular analysis segment, amongst others, with lot more clarity. The middle overs, for that matter, the early and end overs, will cease to be a mystery.
Comments (32)
May 7, 2009
The great Test batsmen - a look across 132 years
Posted by Ananth Narayanan at
in Batting
|
|
|
Brian Lara is next only to Sir Don in the all-time list of Test batsmen
© AFP
|
| This is one of the most awaited analyses and has been in the pipeline for long. Many readers have asked for this analysis and finally I have been able to complete the same. I have given below a summary of how I have gone about this complex analysis process. This is based on my own observations and comments raised by a number of readers over the past few months.
1. There has to be equal weight given to Match performances and Career achievements. The match analysis should deal with the specific match-related measurable situations only.
2. The batsman's longevity related measure such as career runs scored has to be recognised, but at a lower weighting level, no more than 15-20% of the total.
3. There has to be a clear recognition of the quality of bowling faced
by the batsman in every match. A hundred against Australia has to be
valued at a much higher level than a hundred against Bangladesh or New
Zealand in 1933.
4. The batting average should be considered the most
significant of the career-related measures. However this has to be
adjusted based on the par batting average(s) of the period(s) spanned
by the batsman's career. A pre-WW1 batsman's average has to be adjusted
upwards for the low batting averages prevalent during these period
while a current batsman's average has to be adjusted downwards in view
of the high batting averages prevalent. If a batsman's career spans
multiple periods, there has to be proportionate adjustment.
5. The batsman's career strike rate has become an important measure.
This should be recognized, if available. For those batsmen whose
strike rate information is not available, this parameter will not be
included. If the strike rate is available for part of the batsman's
career, it will be considered for that part only. This is explained in
detail later. There is a case for the innings strike rate to be incorporated in the Match Performance calculations. However this revised methodology necessarily requires the strike rate to be a career-based calculation rather than match innings based.
6. Non-measurable cricketing factors such as bouncers,
helmets, uncovered pitches et al cannot be incorporated. Nice for healthy
discussions, but not beyond.
A lengthy introduction, however the weighty topic required
this. Now let us look at the details.
First a minimum criteria is to be established. I have decided
to keep the minimum runs required at 2000 runs so that great batsmen such as
George Headley, Greame Pollock, Ponsford, Macartney, Hazare, O'Neill,
McCabe et al would come in for consideration. If I had raised the bar
to 3000 runs, all these wonderful players would have missed out. It is
also true that in a different era and political situation they would
have played more Tests.
Now for the Ratings methodology.
The Match Performances would carry a weight of 50 points,
based on the methodology explained below. Career Achievements will carry a
weight of 50 points, based on methodology explained later.
Match Performances:
The following factors are considered.
Base for calculation will be Runs scored.
Other factors
are explained below. Each of these is a multiplicative parameter,
ranging either side of 1.00. For certain parameters such as result,
home/away, runs added with late order et al, there would not be a
below 1.00 value.
1. Pitch type.
2. Quality of bowling - weighted by actual balls bowled by each bowler.
3. Position at batsman entry (5 for 1, 100 for 2, 24 for 3, 325 for 4 et al).
4. Runs added with late order batsmen (no. 8 onwards).
5. Innings type (1/2/3/4, Score faced, Target et al).
6. Match result, taking into consideration relative team strengths.
7. Match location (Home/Away).
8. Match importance (Series status).
The points for each innings are computed, summed and divided by the number of matches played to arrive at the Match Performance Ratings value. The highest Match Performance Ratings value is 40.03 achieved by Bradman. George Headley is the next best in this category with 28.48 points followed by Lara with 27.31 points. Thus the limit of 50 we set has worked out well.
Career achievements:
The points allocation, totalling to 50 points, is explained below.
1. Batting average: 20 points (for an adjusted average of 100.00).
Adjusted by the years spanned by the batsman career and the average Batting Average during the period. The adjustment is done proportionately. Most of the adjustment has been downward, between 1% and 6% (for the 2000s batsmen). The highest adjustment has been 20%, for batsmen such as Hill, Trumper whose entire
career has been before Pre-WW1.
The highest adjusted average is that of Bradman, whose average of 99.96
has been adjusted down to 96.75. He gets 19.35 points and is followed
by Hobbs (61.68) with 12.34 points and Weekes (61.06) with 12.21
points.
2. Runs scored: 15 points (for scoring 15,000 Test runs).
Away runs are given a slightly higher weight as explained. Scoring 1050 home runs gets one point for the
batsman while 950 away runs will be enough to get one point. The differential of 10% seems very reasonable. This is the only longevity-based measure and carries a weight of only 15%.
This is a straight-forward calculation. Tendulkar is the highest and gets 12.85 points followed by Lara with 11.93 and Border with 11.16 points.
3. Scoring rate: 10 points (for a scoring rate of 100).
The full 10 points (and a total of 100 points) will be the base for batsmen like Sehwag, Hayden et al, whose career strike rate is available in complete. For batsmen such as Bradman, Hobbs et al, there will be no points taken, consequently the total points for
consideration of the Ratings points % will be 90. For batsmen such as Lara, Tendulkar
et al, proportionate points, out of 10, will be considered, consequently the
total points for consideration of the Ratings points % will be between
90 and 100. This delicate tweak was suggested by Shyam (Ananthanarayan).
Among those whose complete data is available, Gilchrist leads in this measure with 8.20 points followed by Sehwag with 7.87 points and Pieterson with 6.32 points.
4. % of Team runs scored: 5 points (for scoring 25% of team runs).
Bradman is the leader in this measure, having
scored 24.98% of the team runs. He gets 4.99 points, followed by Headley with 4.32 points and Lara with 3.79 points.
Now for the Top-20 table.
The best Test batsmen of all time
No.Cty Batsman Mat Total Rating Match BatAvg Runs BatSR %-TS Max
Pts Pts Perf Pts Pts Pts Pts Pts
1.Aus Bradman D.G 52 (71.27) 79.19 40.02 19.35 6.91 .... 4.99 90.00
2.Win Lara B.C 131 (58.44) 59.40 27.31 10.43 11.93 4.98 3.79 98.38
3.Ind Tendulkar S.R 159 (53.68) 54.59 22.43 10.69 12.85 4.60 3.11 98.33
4.Aus Ponting R.T 131 (54.46) 54.46 23.95 10.85 10.88 5.91 2.87 100.00
5.Eng Hobbs J.B 61 (48.53) 53.93 27.07 12.34 5.49 .... 3.64 90.00
6.Win Sobers G.St.A 93 (48.14) 53.49 25.48 11.48 8.03 .... 3.16 90.00
7.Eng Hutton L 79 (47.78) 53.09 25.85 11.35 6.93 .... 3.66 90.00
8.Ind Gavaskar S.M 125 (47.40) 52.51 23.81 10.02 10.12 0.11 3.35 90.28
9.Win Headley G.A 22 (46.98) 52.20 28.48 12.00 2.18 .... 4.32 90.00
10.Ind Dravid R 134 (51.80) 51.80 23.58 10.11 10.92 4.17 3.02 100.00
11.Aus Hayden M.L 103 (51.71) 51.71 24.47 9.85 8.54 6.01 2.84 100.00
12.Win EdeC Weekes 48 (45.83) 50.92 25.65 12.21 4.44 .... 3.53 90.00
13.Saf Kallis J.H 131 (50.73) 50.73 22.51 10.56 10.23 4.42 3.01 100.00
14.Eng Barrington K.F 82 (45.63) 50.70 23.72 11.71 6.81 .... 3.39 90.00
15.Aus Border A.R 156 (46.62) 50.40 21.50 10.07 11.16 1.01 2.89 92.50
16.Pak Mohammad Yousuf 79 (50.37) 50.37 24.50 10.60 6.81 5.26 3.20 100.00
17.Slk Sangakkara K.C 80 (50.09) 50.09 24.23 10.33 6.73 5.59 3.21 100.00
18.Aus Chappell G.S 87 (45.27) 50.04 24.31 10.54 7.01 0.24 3.17 90.48
19.Ind Sehwag V 69 (49.69) 49.69 23.59 9.40 5.77 7.87 3.06 100.00
20.Win Richards I.V.A 121 (44.67) 49.39 22.81 9.90 8.65 0.31 2.99 90.45
Any doubts as to the position of Bradman at the top should
disappear after this analysis. Bradman is the best in three measures (Match
Performance, Batting Average and % of Team Score). He is ahead of the
next best batsman by a whopping 25%. A series average of 57 by Bradman
was considered to be a failure. It is necessary to agree, once and for
all, that Bradman is and was the best Test batsman who ever played.
Note the qualification, "Test", however. Who can forget the 334, 304,
270, 173* that Bradman scored.
Lara's second position again should not surprise any one.
Playing for a weak team, mostly with inconsistent support, he essayed
some of the best Test innings ever. 153*, 213, 277, 375/400 should
figure in anybody's list of Top-20 innings. He also scored at a fair
pace. Finally has there ever been a better batsman's Test series than
the one, away, against Sri Lanka when he scored 688 runs, all in a
losing cause. Lara is way behind Bradman but is very comfortably ahead
of the next batsman.
The third and fourth positions should be looked together. Tendulkar and Ponting are
separated only in the second decimal, that too because of Ponting's below-average
series aginst South Africa. Two wonderful batsmen, capable of saving or winning Tests,
fully deserving of their high place in this table. If Tendulkar is a more all-round
batsman with an outstanding technique and no weakness, Ponting is the more attacking
batsman but with a known weakness against top class spinners.
Hobbs is in fifth position, deservedly so, no doubt aided by
the upwards revision of his batting average. He played on a number of
bowler-friendly pitches and it is difficult to think of a better opener
other than the one who appears slightly below him.
The top-10 is completed by Sobers, Hutton, Gavaskar, Headley
and Dravid. Every one of these batsmen deserves his position. Headley
is in the Top-10 despite playing only 22 Tests and scoring 2190 runs.
This is a vindication of the Ratings methodology in that a batsman who
has scored only a fifth of the runs the others have scored can still
come into the Top-10.
Richards' position at no.20 might be questioned by some. The
problem is that Richards, with his carefree attitude alternated great
performances with very average performances in his Test career. This is
clearly shown in the Match performances points, quite low at 22.81.
Also his adjusted average is below 50. Finally a simple indicator is the fact
that he has taken 121 Tests to score 8540 runs (71 runs per Test) as
compared to Lara, 131 Tests and 11953 runs (91 runs per Test) or
Hayden, 103 Tests and 8625 runs (84 runs per Test). It is also true
that he never faced the most fearsome bowling attack at that time.
Similarly Hammond's 22nd position (Pieterson is at no.21) must
also be looked at with surprise. This is explained by the fact that a
fair proportion of his runs were scored against very weak New Zealand
attacks and average South African and West Indian attacks.
To view the complete list, please click here.
The support information for the Top-20 batsmen is given below.
The best Test batsmen of all time: Support data
SNo. Cty Batsman Mat Rating Runs Batting (Adj) BatSR %-TS Career
Pts Average (%) BowQty
1. Aus Bradman D.G 52 79.19 6996 96.75 (0.97) .... 25.0% 36.1
2. Win Lara B.C 131 59.40 11953 52.15 (0.99) 59.4* 19.0% 35.4
3. Ind Tendulkar S.R 159 54.59 12773 53.46 (0.98) 55.2* 15.5% 37.1
4. Aus Ponting R.T 131 54.46 10956 54.26 (0.97) 59.1 14.4% 37.0
5. Eng Hobbs J.B 61 53.93 5410 61.68 (1.08) .... 18.2% 35.7
6. Win Sobers G.St.A 93 53.49 8032 57.40 (0.99) .... 15.8% 33.4
7. Eng Hutton L 79 53.09 6971 56.73 (1.00) .... 18.3% 38.4
8. Ind Gavaskar S.M 125 52.51 10122 50.10 (0.98) 38.5* 16.7% 35.6
9. Win Headley G.A 22 52.20 2190 60.02 (0.99) .... 21.6% 32.6
10. Ind Dravid R 134 51.80 10823 50.54 (0.96) 41.7 15.1% 37.0
11. Aus Hayden M.L 103 51.71 8626 49.27 (0.97) 60.1 14.2% 37.3
12. Win EdeC Weekes 48 50.92 4455 61.06 (1.04) .... 17.7% 36.1
13. Saf Kallis J.H 131 50.73 10277 52.79 (0.97) 44.2 15.1% 37.1
14. Eng Barrington K.F 82 50.70 6806 58.55 (1.00) .... 17.0% 36.0
15. Aus Border A.R 156 50.40 11174 50.33 (1.00) 40.5* 14.4% 34.0
16. Pak Mohammad Yousuf 79 50.37 6770 53.00 (0.96) 52.6 16.0% 38.7
17. Slk Sangakkara K.C 80 50.09 6764 51.65 (0.94) 55.9 16.1% 39.4
18. Aus Chappell G.S 87 50.04 7110 52.70 (0.98) 50.8* 15.8% 33.4
19. Ind Sehwag V 69 49.69 5757 47.02 (0.94) 78.7 15.3% 36.0
20. Win Richards I.V.A 121 49.39 8540 49.52 (0.99) 68.1* 15.0% 33.8
'*' means only part strike rate information is available.
The values are self-explanatory. The Batting Average shown is the
adjusted figure and the figure in brackets shows the adjustment done. To view the complete list, please click here
One final note on the quality of bowling faced. For correct
cricketing reasons I had incorporated this measure in the "Match
Performance" segment so that a 100 scored against a strong Australian
attack would carry a lot more weight than a similar innings against a
weak Bangladeshi attack. However I have also done another complicated
exercise, to provide an analytical answer to those who had mentioned
that Bradman faced weak bowling attacks.
I considered every innings played by a batsman, multiplied this by
the weighted bowling quality for the particular innings, summed this
value and divided by the total number of runs scored. There cannot be a better indicator of the quality of bowling faced than this. The last column above indicates this weighted bowling quality indicator for the top-20 batsmen.
It is clear that Bradman faced as good a bowling attack, on an
average, as any one else in the Top-10. In fact he faced a better
bowling attack than Tendulkar, Ponting, Hayden and Dravid. So that
argument should be put to rest.
Amongst the top batsman the batsman who faced the most
powerful bowling attack was Graham Gooch, Alec Stewart, Atherton et al, around 30. This
is quite understandable, considering the quality of West indian bowlers
Gooch faced.
The least powerful attack was faced by Ames, Hammond et al, with around 45. If one looks at the 1932-33 New Zealand attack (sum total of 29 career Test wickets) we can understand this. Then come Sangakkara, Atapattu and Jayasuriya. Understandable considering the tons of runs scored by them against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
To view the complete bowling quality list, please click here
If an analysis is made combining both Tests and ODIs, which I would do later, it is almost certain that Tendulkar would be no.1, although I expect that Richards,
Lara and Ponting would run him close. We obviously have to exclude great batsmen such as Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers et al from this exercise.
Based on the requests from readers an illustration of the Match Performance Ratings calculation will be posted at the earliest.
Match Performance Ratings - Illustrative example
This innings is one of the top-3 innings ever played (might even be the best ever).
Laxman V.V.S
Ind vs Aus, Kolkatta, 2001
Runs scored: 281
Base points: 70.25
- Runs multiplied by 0.25. Really does not matter, can be
anything. 0.25 has been selected since there is no need to
do any scaling up/down later.
Multiplicative indices
Bowling quality: 1.109 (Range: 0.75 to 1.25)
- Weighted bowling average determined by summing product
of bowler's average and balls bowled in the match by
each bowler and dividing by team balls.
- Strong Australian attack. Well above average.
Pitch type: 0.899 (Range: 0.80 to 1.20)
- The pitch characteristics for the concerned year.
- Very good batting pitch.
Entry: 1.075 (Range: 1.00 to 1.15)
- Complex formula based on the innings position at batsman entry.
1/2 innings dealt different to 3/4 innings.
Openers dealt with in a special manner.
- 3rd innings, 222 in arrears at 52 for 1.
Match situation: 1.30 (Range: 1.00 to 1.30)
- Various conditions such as which innings, arrears faced,
target in front of team used. Notional target in case of 3rd
innings and Actual target in case of 4th innings.
- Follow on 274 behind - Still in arrears.
Runs with Late order: 1.00 (Range: 1.00 to 1.30)
- Runs added with batsmen 7-11.
- No runs with late order. No change.
Win bonus: 1.09 (Range: 1.05 to 1.10)
- Result after considering the relative team strengths.
- Win against very strong team - 21% better.
Home/Away: 1.00 (1.00 to 1.05)
- Away bonus only if win is against good teams,
not weak teams (e-g), Ban/Zim/Nzl(1920s) et al.
- Home. No change.
Series status: 1.04 (Range: 0.98 to 1.06)
- Complex analysis based on series status. Maximum for
deciding tests and minimum for dead rubbers.
- 3 test series, trailing 0-1.
Match Performance Rating points: 110.88 (70.25 x 1.5784).
For each batsman, the MPR points are added and divided by the number of innings played to arrive the Match performance Ratings Index.
If anyone thought that I sit and do these individually (and so can modify figures as I wanted), think again. There have been 67438 innings played until now. I have complex computer algorithms for each of these parameters and these are automatically worked out with no manual intervention.
Just to give the readers an indication of the validity of method let me compare two innings by Lara (same batsman chosen to avoid 20 comments). The 400* gets a MPR value of 65.20 points while the 213 carries a MPR value of 73.83 points.
If you are interested in perusing the "C" program code for just one index, just mail me. I will send you the code. It is not made available to all in view of the highly technical nature of the same.
Comments (421)
|
RSS Feed
